Abortion...I would call this a theological issue

[Robert]

 "Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church." 

Ref:  https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/-/abortion/

[Green Cochoa]

7 hours ago, Robert said:

And medical science has clearly said that by every criterion they can apply, human life begins at conception.

And who are the scientists who claim the day begins at midnight?  And who are the scientists who say life on earth began with amoeba-like creatures?

"And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws."

You are free to believe your scientists, but you should not then style your belief as "a theological issue."  That should, instead, be worded as "a scientific issue."  Of course, that uses the term in the way of the worldly.  True science will align itself to the Bible, something you have yet to do here. Where is your "thus saith the LORD" to support your "theology"?

Robert, I did not arrive at my views on this topic from any other source than that of personal Bible study and a close examination of the Biblical words.  The Hebrew is the clearest.  I have more than one Strong's concordance, and I like to use them.  When one sees the multiplicity of texts on this, one sees more clearly what the Bible is saying.  Not even one time in all of the Bible is a reference made to a "soul" for an unborn fetus/baby.  That should give you pause.  Furthermore, Ellen White speaks of children before the age of accountability with a sense of uncertainty as to whether or not they will be in heaven.  Those who assume every aborted baby will be in heaven have no basis for the assumption.  Christ died to save human souls.  The "soul" that sinneth, it shall die.  

It is a misconception to believe fetuses have souls, but supposing they did, the next misconception would be to believe they do not or have not sinned and therefore will only go to heaven.  If these errors were both true instead, then it would do God and the universe a favor to "rip up" (as the Bible put it) the pregnant women and kill their fetuses before they had a chance to sin, thus ensuring them a crown of life in the world to come.

 

[LifeHiscost]

On 8/20/2016 at 4:43 PM, Charity said:

We often forget that this is God's world and we are trying to run it without Him. All our efforts will fail.  Only He can fix things.  And He will. In His own time.   

…3And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.…2 Corinthians 4

God is Love!~Jesus saves!      

[Robert]

On 8/26/2016 at 1:41 AM, Green Cochoa said:

It is a misconception to believe fetuses have souls,

Yes, that's what you believe, but I fully and unequivocally rejected your conclusions....I guess justifying murder - justifying an ongoing holocaust - helps you and others to sleep well at night...

Quote

but supposing they did, the next misconception would be to believe they do not or have not sinned and therefore will only go to heaven. 

Now you are setting up a straw man. 

Here's what I said on this subject: 

Quote

Rom 5:12  "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned—13 sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come."

Did Adam break a known command?  Yes!  See Gen 2:16,17.  

When Adam knowingly broke a known command he became a transgressor.  He was therefore guilty because he knew God's command not to eat of the fruit of the tree of good and evil, but he ate it anyway. 

What was the result of Adam's sin?  Was it not both spiritual and physical death?  Yes!

Adam's descendants - those between Adam and Moses (where the law was posted)  - didn't know of the moral law - yet they were dying even though their "sins were not like the transgression of Adam".  Why?  

They were dying, not because they were transgressors like Adam, but rather because all of them shared Adam's fallen humanity indwelt with iniquity. Keep in mind iniquity is a condition, not an act.  Iniquity is our bent-to-self.  Paul calls this "sin living in me".  See Romans 7:20

Because of Adam's transgression all of us are born sinners.  Note I did not say all of us are born transgressors.  Transgression requires a knowledge of the law.  Justly speaking, "sin is not counted where there is no law"!  

Children are sinners. Mentally disabled folks are sinners. But God's law does not charge them with transgression until they are aware of right and wrong.  When they become transgressors they become guilty of sin.

[Robert]

4 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

do God and the universe a favor to "rip up" (as the Bible put it) the pregnant women and kill their fetuses before they had a chance to sin (transgress) thus ensuring them a crown of life in the world to come.

I corrected your quote because you are in error.....

Again, your conclusions are justifying murder....

Infants who have been murdered, in their mother's womb, will be in heaven because of what Christ's did, not because they are without sin.

Romans 5:18 "So then as through one transgression (Adam's transgression) there resulted condemnation to all men (because we all share his fallen life), even so through one act of righteousness (Christ's, the last Adam) there resulted justification of life to all men."

The Bible warns about practicing known sin.  Murder is a known sin. What does the Bible state about those who support known sin?

"the one who practices sin is of the devil" 1 John 3:8

[Robert]

Jack Sequeira on aboriton:

The big issue today is about abortion in this country.  You are familiar with the problem.  The question is, “Is abortion killing?”  That’s the big question, isn’t it?  And there is an argument.  To answer that question rightly we have to ask ourselves another question, “When does life begin?”

The answer to that is different from God and from man.  Some medical doctors or scientists will say that life begins three months after conception.  Some will say later than that, some earlier.  There are all kind of arguments, and I’m not a medical man.  But I do know what the Bible teaches.  Life begins at conception,...All you have to do is read your Bibles, Old and New Testament; life begins at conception.

Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, abortion is murder.  And we are accusing the Germans of holocaust?  Boy!  Let’s look at ourselves, what we are doing in our country. 

[Robert]

http://www.sfuhl.org/pop16.asp

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Many posts ago, Robert  said below:

I am not certain as to what you are saying, Robert.  On the surface, it seems to be that Green has  not given proper credit to what he is posting and that such credit should be given to the person whom you cited.  Or, perhaps you are simply saying that  Green should not be considered to be posting something new.  I do not know.

Well, let us set the record straight.  It is true that what Green is posting is not something new that he discovered.  It is true that others have presented the same ideas.  As a matter of fact, his basic ideas on this subject have existed in Adventism for many years.  I was taught them some 50 years ago.   It was not a new thought at that time.  If you, Robert, are not aware of this, you are simply not aware of Adventist doctrinal thought on this issue.

Green, I expect that you will want us to know that you discovered your ideas independently through self-Bible study and are not simply posting what you learned from others.  I do not challenge this and suspect that such is true.  So let it be.

It appears that Green is not the originator of what he has been presenting:

[Gregory Matthews]

I am not one who would ever suggest that the SDA Church speaks ex cathedra.  It does not.  However, for those who are interested in what the SDA denomination recommends on the subject of abortion, as Robert has said, see:  

https://www.adventist.org/en/information/official-statements/guidelines/article/go/-/abortion/

 

The above is not a simplistic statement.  It  is both complex and balanced.  Some of what it says include:

Quote

 

) Abortion is one of the tragic dilemmas of human fallenness. The Church should offer gracious support to those who personally face the decision concerning an abortion. Attitudes of condemnation are inappropriate in those who have accepted the gospel. Christians are commissioned to become a loving, caring community of faith that assists those in crisis as alternatives are considered.

and

Quote

 

The Church does not serve as conscience for individuals; however, it should provide moral guidance. Abortions for reasons of birth control, gender selection, or convenience are not condoned by the Church. Women, at times however, may face exceptional circumstances that present serious moral or medical dilemmas, such as significant threats to the pregnant woman's life, serious jeopardy to her health, severe congenital defects carefully diagnosed in the fetus, and pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. The final decision whether to terminate the pregnancy or not should be made by the pregnant woman after appropriate consultation. She should be aided in her decision by accurate information, biblical principles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Moreover, these decisions are best made within the context of healthy family relationships.

and

Quote

 

God gives humanity the freedom of choice, even if it leads to abuse and tragic consequences. His unwillingness to coerce human obedience necessitated the sacrifice of His Son. He requires us to use His gifts in accordance with His will and ultimately will judge their misuse (

Deuteronomy 30:19,20; Genesis 3; 1 Peter 2:24; Romans 3:5,6, 6:1,2; Galatians 5:13).

10) God calls each of us individually to moral decision making and to search the scriptures for the biblical principles underlying such choices (John 5:39; Acts 17:11; 1 Peter 2:9; Romans 7:13-25).

Much more is said.  Access the document to read it all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

Robert,

The Bible says "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).  Do you accept this definition?  You seem to be saying that sin and transgression are different.  The Bible says they are equal.  I will accept a "thus saith the LORD" over a human opinion any day.

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die," we are told.  To escape that death, we must repent and accept Jesus as our Savior by faith.  

 

In light of the basics in the plan of redemption, Robert makes some untenable, astounding, claims.  He contradicts himself without realizing, as all who espouse some error eventually must.  In this case, he is pitting several inspired passages against each other.  Carefully consider these:

1) For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. (Romans 3:23)

If fetuses have souls, they are certainly included in the above "all."  That means they have sinned.

2) Sin is the transgression of the law. (1 John 3:4)

3)  In the grave he has no power to choose anything, be it good or evil; for in the day when a man dies, his thoughts perish. (Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5, 6.)  {COL 269.3}  (EGW)

Ellen White quoted directly from the Bible to make the above statement--helping us to understand that without thoughts, no choice can be made, either for good or for evil.  Clearly, if one cannot choose evil, one cannot sin.  I'm sure Robert would agree that dead people don't sin.  He must also agree, by extension, that pre-thought fetuses could not possibly sin (more on that shortly).

4) It is not in the power of earth or hell to compel any one to sin. The will must consent, the heart must yield, or passion cannot overbear reason, nor iniquity triumph over righteousness.  {Mar 225.5}  (EGW)

 

Numbers 3 & 4 of the above indicate that without thoughts, one cannot sin.  Neither zygote nor blastocyst has brain/will or heart by which to make a decision of any kind.  Therefore, it is impossible for it to have sinned.  If it indeed had a soul, the Bible would be proven false, for it says "ALL have sinned."  Furthermore, looking at #2, we see that sin requires a transgression of the law.  Since the blastocyst or zygote did not create itself, if it were a sinner, one might say that God had thus created it.  This thought, therefore, is but a blasphemous suggestion of the devil.

I would go so far as to say that fetuses, if indeed they have souls, cannot be saved.  Consider the following:

The soul must first be convicted of sin, before the sinner will feel a desire to come to Christ. "Sin is the transgression of the law." "I had not known sin but by the law." When the commandment came home to Saul's conscience, sin revived, and he died. He saw himself condemned by the law of God. The sinner cannot be convinced of his guilt, unless he understands what constitutes sin. It is impossible for an individual to experience Bible sanctification while he holds that if he believes in Christ it is immaterial whether he obeys God's law or disobeys it.  {RH, March 8, 1881 par. 8}  (EGW)

I believe that a fetus cannot understand "what constitutes sin."  Thankfully, I also understand that a fetus does not have a soul, and therefore may not yet be a sinner.  It has not yet "entered" into the world.  The Bible distinguishes that "entry" as being the time of birth.  Because the fetus has not entered the world, has not yet received the "breath of life," and has not, therefore, met the Bible standard as having a "soul," it will not be brought up in the second resurrection to be punished for its sins.

 

[Green Cochoa]

5 hours ago, Robert said:

Infants who have been murdered, in their mother's womb, will be in heaven because of what Christ's did, not because they are without sin.

1) The Bible defines "murder" as having intentionally and unjustifiably killed a "soul."  If a fetus has no soul, it fails of the definition of "murder."  It is still eligible, certainly, to be included under the definition of "killing."  All geese are birds, but not all birds are geese.  All murders are killings, but not all killings are murders.  "Murder" is a specific subset of "killing."

2) If murdered souls will be in heaven regardless of their state of sinfulness, then the biggest evangelist in the world is the serial murderer.  The murderer's victims would "be in heaven because of what Christ's (sic) did, not because they are without sin."

3) If Christ's sacrifice will save souls regardless, then none need fear being lost, for all will be saved.  This is a false gospel.

[Robert]

21 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

Robert,

The Bible says "sin is the transgression of the law" (1 John 3:4).  Do you accept this definition?  

I noted how you just totally ignored Paul: 

"sin is not counted where there is no law." Romans 5:13  

"the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression" Romans 4:15

 "through the law comes knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20

What part of the above are you finding difficult - perhaps I can help you?

[Robert]

30 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

1) The Bible defines "murder" as having intentionally and unjustifiably killed a "soul."  If a fetus has no soul, it fails of the definition of "murder."

No, murder is the intentional taking of a life for a selfish purpose.  Abortion as birth control fits this definition. 

[Robert]

37 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

2) If murdered souls will be in heaven regardless of their state of sinfulness, then the biggest evangelist in the world is the serial murderer.  The murderer's victims would "be in heaven because of what Christ's (sic) did, not because they are without sin."

You mean murdered lives...."Life is in the blood"....

So now, in your eyes, murder is even more justifiable.  Sick!

[Robert]

36 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

3) If Christ's sacrifice will save souls regardless, then none need fear being lost, for all will be saved.  This is a false gospel.

Straw man....

[Robert]

7 hours ago, Green Cochoa said:

The sinner cannot be convinced of his guilt, unless he understands what constitutes sin.

Ellen White had some difficulties between condemnation & guilt. 

"Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his guilt and its consequences"  Signs of the Times, May 19, 1890

What she should have said was, "Adam sinned, and the children of Adam share his condemnation and its consequences".  This is clearly taught in Romans chapter 5.

You see guilt involves volition. Because of Adam's sin I belong to a condemned humanity.  I have nothing but the grave in font of me. When I come to know that I am a sinner then I become guilty of transgression.  Now I stand guilty under law. 

 

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

 

Many posts ago, Robert  said below:

I am not certain as to what you are saying, Robert.  On the surface, it seems to be that Green has  not given proper credit to what he is posting and that such credit should be given to the person whom you cited.  Or, perhaps you are simply saying that  Green should not be considered to be posting something new.  I do not know.

Well, let us set the record straight.  It is true that what Green is posting is not something new that he discovered.  It is true that others have presented the same ideas.  As a matter of fact, his basic ideas on this subject have existed in Adventism for many years.  I was taught them some 50 years ago.   It was not a new thought at that time.  If you, Robert, are not aware of this, you are simply not aware of Adventist doctrinal thought on this issue.

Green, I expect that you will want us to know that you discovered your ideas independently through self-Bible study and are not simply posting what you learned from others.  I do not challenge this and suspect that such is true.  So let it be.

 

To set the record straight, I have never heard of the person(s) whom Robert linked, nor ever seen the website.  (I still haven't.  I tend to prefer to study from inspired sources than from other authors.)  I am not at all surprised that others should have discovered the Bible's gems, for they are there for all to see; but I have not gathered them from any but the Bible and Ellen White through my own studies, as far as I am aware.  I add that last qualification because the Bible says "there is nothing new under the sun," and I may well have heard something spoken at some point in time which helped me on my journey that I do not recall at this time.  I am happy to hear others have reached such sound conclusions as I have also found in studying God's Word.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

42 minutes ago, Robert said:

I noted how you just totally ignored Paul: 

"sin is not counted where there is no law." Romans 5:13  

"the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression" Romans 4:15

 "through the law comes knowledge of sin" Romans 3:20

What part of the above are you finding difficult - perhaps I can help you?

To say something is not counted is rather different than to say it did not exist, don't you think?  But if your argument that "where there is no law" is used to protect ignorance/ignorants, then evangelists must really be doing the work of the devil to tell everyone the truth.  They'd be better off without it, don't you think?

I would rather think that salvation comes through a knowledge of God's law.  That's because I don't want to be sinning, even ignorantly.

[Green Cochoa]

1 hour ago, Robert said:

No, murder is the intentional taking of a life for a selfish purpose.  Abortion as birth control fits this definition. 

Ah…if that is your definition and example for applying it, you had best never meet a meat-eating hunter, because he's a murderer.  For that matter, don't ever swat that mosquito--isn't such a taking of life for a selfish purpose?

The Bible is careful with words.  We must be also.

[Gregory Matthews]

"Green, as I thought that you would say.

 

As to self study:  The Bible clearly tells us that there is benefit in worshiping together in a community/congregation.  Granted, worship together may or may not involve community  study. But, I will suggest that there is benefit in community study of the Bible.  All of us are human.  None of us have the benefit of perfect knowledge and complete knowledge.  We can benefit from considering the results of the study of others.

Green, as often as you and I disagree, and we do,  I have gained from considering what you post, at times.  Not always.  But sometimes.  

 

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green has posted some comments to which I wish to respond.  I will number his comments and copy them in BOLD.  My comment will follow:

 

1) To say something is not counted is rather different than to say it did not exist, don't you think?  

Exactly there is an objective aspect of sin.  It exists.  God's plan of salvation must address this issue and take care of it.  But, regardless of the existence of sin, we are personally only charged with sin as we rebel against the conviction of the Holy Spirit.  If the Holy Spirit has not convicted of a specific sin, we are not charged with that sin. 

 

2) But if your argument that "where there is no law" is used to protect ignorance/ignorants, then evangelists must really be doing the work of the devil to tell everyone the truth.  They'd be better off without it, don't you think?

Yes, Green, I do not think you agree with the above.  Willful ignorance is effectively rebellion against God and that is sin.

 

3)  I would rather think that salvation comes through a knowledge of God's law.  That's because I don't want to be sinning, even ignorantly.

Green, I do not want to erect a straw-man.  But, I have a problem with the above:  I am not comfortable in saying that our salvation depends upon our knowledge.  I prefer to give all of the credit to Christ.

 

[Green Cochoa]

4 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

"Green, as I thought that you would say.

 

As to self study:  The Bible clearly tells us that there is benefit in worshiping together in a community/congregation.  Granted, worship together may or may not involve community  study. But, I will suggest that there is benefit in community study of the Bible.  All of us are human.  None of us have the benefit of perfect knowledge and complete knowledge.  We can benefit from considering the results of the study of others.

Green, as often as you and I disagree, and we do,  I have gained from considering what you post, at times.  Not always.  But sometimes.  

 

I don't disagree that there is benefit in corporate study.  In my location, I am deprived of this, save for online discussions like this one.  Perhaps that is why I am here.

Having said that, I study for myself before forming any of my own beliefs.  I take everything from outside with a grain of salt--if it jives with what I find in Scripture, then I accept it; if not, I reject it.  I do not go looking for my beliefs in the works of non-inspired authors for two key reasons: 1) we are told to base our beliefs on a "thus saith the Lord," and those do not constitute such; and 2) I do not, quite frankly, have much time for reading beyond God's Word.  There may be other reasons.  I am thousands of miles from the nearest Adventist Book Center--as the crow flies, in any direction.  I simply do not have access to such.  Most of the time, I don't miss it.  I'm too busy anyhow.  

Now, if I did not study for myself, I would just be repeating the same ideas from the same perspectives as you've probably seen already many times.  The fact that you see something gain-worthy in what I post shows it has an element of originality that comes from original study.  But originality is increasingly uncommon in these times.  We should all be studying for ourselves more.  I find the largest theological errors all boil down to the simplest of definitions which have been misunderstood.  Many see things like the "soul" as a great mystery.  It doesn't need to be.  Sure, some parts cannot be explained, nor do they need to be.  

3 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

3)  I would rather think that salvation comes through a knowledge of God's law.  That's because I don't want to be sinning, even ignorantly.

Green, I do not want to erect a straw-man.  But, I have a problem with the above:  I am not comfortable in saying that our salvation depends upon our knowledge.  I prefer to give all of the credit to Christ.

 

Jesus Himself has taught us, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free."  It is one of the ironies of the Bible that the same law which condemns us to death also helps to set us free.  "Thy righteousness is an everlasting righteousness, and thy law is the truth."  (Psalm 119:142)  "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth."  (John 17:17)

[Green Cochoa]

11 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

I am not comfortable in saying that our salvation depends upon our knowledge.

Perhaps you just need more knowledge.  Above I answered from the Bible.  Now, there's a statement that I have put into my sermons more than once from Mrs. White, encouraging people to study more for themselves.  You should read this.

     Our salvation depends on a knowledge of the truth contained in the Scriptures. It is God's will that we should possess this. Search, O search the precious Bible with hungry hearts. Explore God's word as the miner explores the earth to find veins of gold. Never give up the search until you have ascertained your relation to God and His will in regard to you. Christ declared, "Whatsoever ye shall ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in My name, I will do it." John 14:13, 14.  {COL 111.3}  

To apply the above to the topic of this thread, how many fetuses have a knowledge of the Scriptures?  Naturally, the context may not apply to the unborn.  On the other hand, "knowledge" is much more important than many realize.  Here's another one for those who have erroneous opinions that cannot be supported by a plain "thus saith the LORD."

     The truth and the glory of God are inseparable; it is impossible for us, with the Bible within our reach, to honor God by erroneous opinions. Many claim that it matters not what one believes, if his life is only right. But the life is molded by the faith. If light and truth is within our reach, and we neglect to improve the privilege of hearing and seeing it, we virtually reject it; we are choosing darkness rather than light.  {GC 597.2}  
     "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Proverbs 16:25. Ignorance is no excuse for error or sin, when there is every opportunity to know the will of God. A man is traveling and comes to a place where there are several roads and a guideboard indicating where each one leads. If he disregards the guideboard, and takes whichever road seems to him to be right, he may be ever so sincere, but will in all probability find himself on the wrong road.  {GC 597.3}

[Gregory Matthews]

To say that I am not comfortable in saying . . . . is not the same as saying that . . . . has no element of truth.  Knowledge is important.  Knowledge may be said to be a factor.  But, I   remain uncomfortable in that statement that I so stated.

At the very least, such statements can be misconstrued.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, below:

I have suspected such.   

I don't disagree that there is benefit in corporate study.  In my location, I am deprived of this, save for online discussions like this one.  Perhaps that is why I am here.